857 Page – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Reading Time: 3 minutes [309 words]


Here is the translated text as follows:

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER

The prosecution, having established that the prisoner was the author of "The Prospect Before Us," introduced the entire pamphlet as evidence. The defense protested, arguing that only the sections cited in the indictment should be considered by the jury. This was especially pertinent given the court's decision that the jurors were only concerned with the specific offense charged in the official documents and should not be influenced by any prejudices against the pamphlet as a whole. However, the judge countered that the prisoner was on trial for writing "The Prospect Before Us" and should not evade punishment simply because only mild excerpts appeared in the indictment. To rectify this oversight, the judge allowed the jury to read the entire pernicious production.

With the prosecution's case concluded, the defense was instructed to proceed. The prisoner's counsel sought to prove the truth of the pamphlet's statements by calling a well-known citizen, Colonel Taylor, to the stand. The judge interrupted, declaring that every question posed to the witness must first be examined and approved by the court. He further stated that he would only admit testimony that proved the truth of the entire paragraph cited in the indictment. The defense argued that different witnesses might corroborate different statements within the pamphlet, and it was unreasonable to expect one individual to substantiate the entire document.

Despite being contemptuously referred to as "you young gentlemen" and enduring public slights and sneers from the bench, the three lawyers stood their ground. They insisted that the court's rulings amounted to a complete denial of justice and virtually defied the bench. Eventually, the judge made a pretense of requesting the District Attorney to allow the questions that "the young gentlemen were so insistent" on, but the request was declined.

With no other recourse, the defense was left to address the jury directly.

Related Posts
Top